[Some of those who have signified their willingness to consider "The Platform Republican Approach to the 2012 Election" have asked me to provide a summary of that approach they can use to introduce it to their contacts and friends. This is my effort to comply. Those who wish to follow up by exploring the details further should click on the item labeled The Platform Republican Approach at my blog. Feel free to share this summary in any and every way you can. For those of you who have your own sites, this notice constitutes permission to publish this particular post, in its entirety, on your site as you see fit, with proper attribution of course.]

We have entered the period when voters usually make their final decisions about what they intend to do in the voting booth on election day. This year's election is, in a negative sense, the most fatefully treacherous the American people have ever faced. The future of their liberty is at stake, along with all the blessings liberty incurs.

The election is treacherous, because in the contest for the Presidency neither of the two parties that have maliciously contrived to become the main focus of the political process offers a choice for President that actually preserves liberty.

In word and deed, the Democrats' nominee rejects the premises of liberty (as articulated in the organic law of the United States, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution), particularly the primordial principle of God-endowed unalienable rights. The Republican Party's platform formally acknowledges liberty's premises, and generally offers policies derived from respect for them, but apart from rhetoric, cynically deployed for electoral purposes, the Republican nominee's record as a public official coincides — in respect of every critical issue of principle — with that of his Democrat opponent.

Both have proposed and implemented socialist schemes for healthcare that establish and consolidate government control of this life-and-death sector of our economic life. With respect to the purported lawfulness of abortion, and enforcement by law of so-called "rights" for homosexuals, both have adopted stances incompatible with the premise that basic human rights are endowed by the Creator, not by government invention. With respect to the use and abuse of judicial power, both have adopted stances that erase the constitutional separation of powers. Both have expressed and acted on the pretense that, per se, judicial opinions have the force of law even when, without warrant of law or constitutional provision, they purport to ignore, alter, innovate, or abolish laws duly enacted by the legislative branch, or constitutional provisions duly ratified by the people.

Obama has done so dramatically with respect to the immigration laws of the United States; and as Commander-in-Chief, by imposing upon military personnel the obligation to accept and show respect for the practice of homosexuality (doing so even though this contravenes the otherwise lawful and indispensable tenets of their conscientious religious belief). On the other hand, Mitt Romney has also contravened the constitutional separation of powers by saying that he will continue Obama's enforcement of respect for homosexuality in the military; by consistently claiming that, of itself, the judicial opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court compelled his unlawful imposition of gay marriage in Massachusetts; and by declaring, contrary to the requirements of respect for the God-endowed unalienable right to life, that the murder of innocent nascent children "should be lawful" in cases of rape and incest.

Romney and Obama also agree in accepting the provision of purported law that allows the military arrest and indefinite detention of persons by the U.S. government without due process of law; the coercion of religious conscience by government pursuant to implementing specious "abortion rights" in the health sector; and the tyrannical dictation of economic activity that by law requires individuals to purchase health insurance against their will, or subsidize by private contribution health services that contravene their conscience.

Any one of these derogations from the premises of liberty is sufficient, by itself, to destroy, as a matter of fact, the peaceful enjoyment of God-endowed rights that is the purpose for which "governments are instituted among men." No one loyal to the republican form of government required by the U.S. Constitution can or should vote for or support any candidate whose embrace of such derogatory policies abandons, contradicts, and destroys the foundations for the republican form of government. Therefore, no one loyal to liberty can or should vote for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

The powers-that-be presently in control of the Democrat and Republican parties have thus contrived to offer no choice for liberty in the 2012 electoral contest for President of the United States. People who say that voters "have no choice" but to vote for one or the other of these candidates confirm, by that statement alone, that they have themselves abandoned their birthright as Americans. They also reveal their abandonment of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution provides for three separate and co-equal branches of government, including a legislative branch empowered (by proper vote of a constitutionally-sufficient majority) to oversee, thwart, and even remove from any position of authority under the U.S. Constitution, individuals who fail to respect the provisions and requirements of the republican form of government it demands. The Constitution also reserves the residual sovereign authority of the state governments, and of the people in their respective states, to act in defense of the provisions and requirements of republican government. So the elections for the U.S. House and Senate, as well as the choice of representatives for state and local offices, remain available as critically important means to thwart advancing tyranny.

As advocated on my blog, "The Platform Republican Approach to the 2012 Election" aims to empower voters to remember and act on these aspects of the Constitution. What I call the elitist faction has contrived to make the 2012 Presidential contest part of their agenda to replace the self-government of the American people with a government of, by, and for self-serving elements of their faction. But to ease and facilitate their control, their agenda also seeks to abuse the electoral process in order to give their arrogation of tyrannical power an aura of legitimacy derived from the appearance of popular consent.

With this goal in view, the task of the elitist faction's GOP wing is to lure self-professed "conservative" voters to participate in the electoral process without regard to the fact that in the most visible electoral contest, both candidates represent forces opposed to their conservative views. The language of the GOP's platform reflects this elitist faction goal. It is mainly intended as a rhetorical device with which to attract the hopes, however forlorn, of conservative Americans who would otherwise constitute a large enough block of votes to severely hamper the consolidation of elitist control.

But because its language and proposals consistently give lip-service to the premises and requirements of constitutional self-government, the GOP platform can also serve as a rallying point for conservative votes. The Platform Republican Approach calls upon truly conservative voters to cast a vote that signifies support for the GOP platform's language. But at the same time, it calls on them to cast a vote that signifies rejection of the elitist faction's intention to eliminate any prospect that the GOP platform language will actually be carried out. The Platform Republican Approach to the 2012 election proposes to send this message by means readily available to voters in every state on election day (no problems of ballot access), and that can be mobilized with no effort beyond the decision to adhere to the approach and no cost or bother beyond making use of the communications media now widely available to practically every citizen (email, social networking, telephones and mobile phones, etc.).

All that is required is that people spread the word. And the word says simply Vote NO to Obama, NO to Romney, and NO to socialism, whatever party label it wears. Vote YES to all GOP candidates on the rest of their ticket whom you believe have not, in their words or the record of their actions, repudiated the GOP platform in any critical respect.

The result sought by the strategy is also simple: to produce, on election day, a remarkable disparity between the total nationwide popular vote for Mitt Romney and the larger total, nationwide vote for the rest of the ticket. The existence and size of that disparity will signal both the strength and the effective disaffection of the conservative base the elitist faction leaders of the GOP are seeking to

exploit, betray, and ultimately discard. Whether Romney wins or loses, this will also contribute to the likelihood of a Republican majority in the U.S. House and Senate charged with thwarting the anti-republican, anti-constitutional, socialist moral and economic agenda.

Right now, the elitist faction leadership in both the Republican and Democrat Parties believe that the American people are inescapably enmeshed and enthralled by the delusory political process — the mental shackles that, to all intents and purposes, constrain people to behave like political zombies, thoughtlessly accepting the un-American notion of elections in which they "have no choice" but to cast a vote that does not represent their true convictions. By following The Platform Republican Approach to the 2012 Election, conservatives will prove to themselves that they can make another choice; and they will prove to the world that they have the requisite independence of mind and heart to do so.

Alan Keyes

Dr. Keyes holds the distinction of being the only person ever to run against Barack Obama in a truly contested election — one featuring authentic moral conservatism vs. progressive liberalism — when they challenged each other for the open U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004... (more)

Dr. Keyes holds the distinction of being the only person ever to run against Barack Obama in a truly contested election — one featuring authentic moral conservatism vs. progressive liberalism — when they challenged each other for the open U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004.

During the Reagan years, Keyes was the highest-ranking black appointee in the Reagan Administration, serving as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations and as Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

He ran for president in 1996, 2000, and 2008, and was a Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Maryland in 1988 and 1992, in addition to his 2004 candidacy in Illinois.

He holds a Ph.D. in government from Harvard and wrote his dissertation on constitutional theory.

His basic philosophy can best be described as "Declarationism" — since he relies on the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence to define the premises on which our country was founded, and to which it must return if it is to survive. To Dr. Keyes, the Constitution itself cannot be faithfully interpreted, understood, or applied apart from the divinely-premised principles of the Declaration.

When Keyes ran for president in 2000, the media generally considered him the winner of the Republican primary debates, due to the persuasive eloquence of his defense of the unborn, opposition to unfair taxation, advocacy of school choice, promotion of family values, and focus on what he called "America's moral crisis." As a result, he became the host of MSNBC-TV's "Alan Keyes Is Making Sense" in 2002.

He is best known for thrusting the evil of abortion — which he considers our nation's "greatest moral challenge" — into the national spotlight.

Keyes is also a strong supporter of Israel, and in 2002 he was flown by the Israeli government to the Holy Land to receive an award for his staunch defense of Israel in the media. He is the only American ever to receive such an honor from the State of Israel.

When Keyes ran against Obama for the Senate in 2004, he did so because he was incensed the Democrat "community organizer" refused to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois on several occasions — a measure approved not long afterward by the U.S. Senate, 100 to 0.

Alan is available to address interested venues of students, educators, civic groups, professional organizations, public servants, political advocates, churches, and others who are interested in preserving our nation's institutions of liberty.

To arrange a speech or special appearance by Dr. Keyes, contact his scheduler, Carla Michele, at 469-301-0776.